Socialist transformation is not possible without truly proletarian leadership, and such leadership cannot be formed without a continuous battle against those who misdirect the working class. A movement for the development of a real party of the working class must deal with the problem of misleadership, whether that misleadership takes the form of retrograde hacks of business unionism, of smooth sounding social democrats, of encrusted revisionists, or of ultraleft “super-revolutionaries”. Most forms of misleadership, including social democracy and institutionalized revisionism, have become part and parcel of the established bourgeois order of things, and thus are not easily or quickly dislodged.
In the long run, revisionism in particular will remain a principal roadblock to the construction of a vital revolutionary movement. This is so not only because the old line “communist parties” still use some of the language of revolutionary Marxism to abort revolutionary advance, but also because revisionism lays claim to the legacy of the Russian Revolution and is backed by the material force of the world’s second mightiest power.
In opposition to this thrust to sap the revolutionary energy of Marxism-Leninism and to divert the remains into bourgeois channels has been the world-wide growth, partially stimulated by the lessons of the Cultural Revolution in China, of an anti-revisionist movement. Revolutionary Marxism has been revitalized by attention to its first principles – the recognition of Marxism-Leninism as a revolutionary science, the need for a vanguard party of the working class, the necessity for the forcible overthrow of the capitalist class and its state apparatus, and the need for a dictatorship of the proletariat in the whole period of socialist transition.
It is a harsh truth, however, that much fakery also parades under the banner of anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism. The very growth of revolutionary Marxism throughout the world makes it more attractive and assures the adherence to its banner of all manner of scoundrels and deceivers. The mere articulation of first principles does not in itself guarantee a revolutionary future; it is our contention that here in Canada (and in the United States as well) the recent forwarding of Marxism-Leninism has been and continues to be the focal point for much phoney theory and phoney practice.
Any revolutionary individual or group emanating from a bourgeois society is bound to manifest bourgeois and petty-bourgeois symptoms at one time or another; this by itself does not make them scoundrels and deceivers. But there are those who do not simply manifest symptoms; they are fully consolidated counterrevolutionaries who consistently inhibit the growth of revolutionary forces. The most consummate of them initiate and lead political groups, often made up in part of well-meaning and sincere people, and in so doing, dissipate potentially progressive energies and create organizations completely reactionary in their class character.
Consider, for example, the groups (like the Canadian Communist League, and In Struggle) and grouplets which make up what is called the new Marxist-Leninist movement in Canada. They accept themselves and each other as Marxist-Leninists based solely on the restatement of first principles, which are comprehended with such shallowness and are then so grossly misapplied that sound principles are turned into a caricature of Marxism-Leninism. This caricature, moreover, cannot simply be chalked up to the innocence or errors of otherwise sincere revolutionaries. When distortion and dishonesty pile up over a period of time so as to become a way of life for its practitioners, then we are dealing not with friends led astray, but with enemies. Under certain circumstances – the present being a case in point – enemies like these, precisely because they don the mantle of the revolutionary science of the proletariat, can present greater obstacles to progress and become more of a problem in the battle against misleadership than others who are more clearly recognizable as bourgeois. This is a severe judgment, one that cannot be made lightly, but rather must be proven substantively. The purpose of this pamphlet is to demonstrate this judgment.
How, it may be asked, is it possible to make a uniform and general characterization of a movement which, on the surface, appears rent asunder with cleavages and differences on so many questions? Perhaps, it may be argued, with such a conflict of opinions, it is to be expected that while certain tendencies or groups do represent consummate fakery, there must also be progressive counter-tendencies which indicate an evolving and healthy struggle between proletarian and bourgeois leadership. This hopeful view of the “movement” founders on investigation, however, since beneath the seeming welter of opinions lies a common bedrock of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology from which seeps false theories and false practice.
In this and the next section, we will look at the essential characteristics and historical roots of the “young Canadian Marxist-Leninist movement” and examine how they are indicative of pure and simple retrogression. Later sections of the pamphlet will demonstrate our contention in a more detailed textual analysis of some of the writings that have come out of the “movement”.
In a capitalist society, where the ruling class not only controls the productive and state apparatus but also shapes and misshapes the ideas, attitudes and very sentiments of the subject population with remarkable success, it is inevitable that opportunism (in its most general sense, the masking of self-interest behind platitudes of moral and theoretical high-mindedness) suffuses the whole society. The more successful the ruling class is in ruling, the more deceived the other classes will be by the false theories which conceal the self-interest generated by and essential to the operation of an exploitative society. The proletariat, as the most revolutionary class in world history, must break not only with the system of capitalist productive relations and repressive state control which holds it and other classes in subjugation, but also with the patterns of thought and conduct which help to maintain capitalist class relations. Without such a break, the proletariat cannot fulfill its historical mission of emancipating itself and all of humanity.
Marxist-Leninists address the problem of opportunism mainly as it applies to the infusion of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology within a Marxist-Leninist movement or party. Given the tremendous influence of opportunism – the inheritance of thousands of years of class rule – it is unavoidable that even the vanguard suffers from such tendencies. Since there can be no such thing as a party (or a pre-party formation) of guaranteed revolutionary virtue, hygienically sanitized against the infiltration of retrogressive attitudes and practices, and since socialist revolution cannot occur without a Marxist-Leninist party, a viable party must persistently battle against the dangers of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois outlooks and conduct within its ranks.
A victory for opportunism within Marxism-Leninism results in nothing less than the misleadership of the working class and the strengthening of bourgeois hegemony, and even, as in the Soviet case, the dissolution of a once victorious socialist revolution. In contrast, the sound proletarian party, through its integration of Marxist-Leninist theory and practice, and by its genuinely proletarian example and work style, defines the revolutionary line of development for its class. The success of a proletarian vanguard party in its struggle to create and maintain a revolutionary path is therefore directly dependent on its capacity to undercut and root out opportunism both within itself and in the working class. Throughout the entire epoch of party formation, seizure of power, and socialist transformation, the battle against opportunism, as it arises in ever more sophisticated forms, must never abate, since any slackening of vigilance in this struggle is an invitation to defeat.
In capitalist society backward ideology is so constantly and insidiously inflicted by the bourgeoisie on all other classes that retrograde outlooks and conduct are to be found in even the most advanced and honest revolutionaries. It should come as no surprise, then, that they will commit mistakes not only out of ignorance, but also out of self-interest. Opportunistic manifestations such as elitism, arrogance and sloppy analysis covered by a fig leaf of high-minded posturing appear with great frequency. Their correction makes up the endless battle against opportunism and in fact funnels energies onto a revolutionary path. Correcting their mistakes is the way revolutionaries defeat the bourgeois in themselves, and discover and adopt proletarian ideology.
Fully consolidated opportunism is another matter. Here we are no longer dealing with mere mistakes. A full-blown opportunist individual or group is animated by the ideology of class enemies, elaborately disguised to resemble Marxism-Leninism. In an individual, only an honest and wrenching critical appraisal and transformation can redress such opportunism. Not so for a group; its complete political liquidation is the only solution. The leadership – which defines the group’s political direction – is so deeply mired in opportunism that the group is unsalvageable. The leadership and the group must be systematically exposed and repudiated, and any honest and innocent elements led astray must be weaned from the group. This process is no less than the political destruction of the group.
It is this battle against opportunism which gives the world of revolutionary Marxism its peculiar quality of open, intense conflict, which many well-meaning people decry for the sake of easy unity. The idea that exposing opportunism is a ceaseless necessity sounds ominous to those who mistake the seizing of power and sustaining of socialism for a time of peace and harmony, and do not accept the fact that no revolution can succeed without the leadership of a truly proletarian vanguard, its unity forged in class struggle. In the process of developing proletarian class attitudes, class enemies, particularly among the leadership within revolutionary ranks, are exposed, leading necessarily to splits or the pruning of sick parts from the healthy main body. To not recognize this necessity and to unite, out of liberal sentimentality, with everyone who claims to be progressive is itself one of the most common forms of opportunism. Unwillingness to see and fight against opportunism is the attitude which first leads to unprincipled unity with enemies lodged within the revolutionary ranks, and then, inevitably, to collaboration with the bourgeoisie itself.
While all opportunism is essentially rightist in its consequences, it is not always the same in form. Opportunism assumes two general forms in the life of any proletarian party – right and “left”. Its rightist form is the domination of “normal” bourgeois theories and practices in the disguise of Marxist phraseology. Since bourgeois styles and ideas are the most common in capitalist societies, right opportunist tendencies are the most typical and durable form generally found in a party. Thus the standard predispositions of right opportunism such as reformism, economism, empiricism and pragmatism are also among the most pervasive ideological features of bourgeois society at large. Moreover, they have broad appeal in the working class itself, which is why the ruling class can be counted on to offer some of its most delicious rewards to “labour leaders” who display phoney militancy the better to sap real revolutionary potential. The present success of this ploy can best be judged by the frequent acquiescence, and at times, even acceptance by its victims.
Since the danger of right opportunism is, in usual circumstances, the greatest barrier to revolutionary transformation, it assumes even more threatening proportions when the proletarian vanguard has the strongest links with its class and with the masses. When this form of opportunism is developed into a full-fledged body of “principles” distorting Marxism-Leninism, then the working class is confronted with its mortal enemy, revisionism. Revisionism has clearly coagulated into a force which, it can no longer be said, represents mere errors or mere “revisions” of one or another aspect of Marxist theory; it has become a powerful counter-revolutionary instrument, an instrument all the more dangerous because of its sophisticated Marxist cover.
Left opportunism, often called adventurism or ultraleftism, is sometimes more difficult to unmask. Because of its excesses and instability, it is commonly attributed solely to youthful exuberance, and there is a tendency to underestimate its danger and to see it as less harmful than right opportunism. This is a profound mistake since left opportunism is not just a case of mere zealousness, of simply being “too revolutionary”.
Left opportunism is characterized by fickleness, superficial theory, and hairbrained practice – traits endemic to rebellious petty-bourgeois intellectuals. It flaunts the most revolutionary-sounding language and the most revolutionary-appearing deeds, and thus can look like it is ahead of its time. But both its language and its deeds are in fact unrelated to objective requirements; thus it is not even in tune with its time, much less ahead of it.
Like right opportunism, ultraleftism distorts and revises Marxism-Leninism, but it differs in that it does not settle into an established revisionist mold. Even Trotskyism, the most persistent example of left opportunism, has never developed into a truly left revisionist theory since Trotskyists, in the manner characteristic of vacillating petty-bourgeois intellectuals, are continually splitting over which of their “new” ideas is the most revolutionary. Anarchism is the only type of ultraleftism that has a body of “principles” which defines it as a coherent, counterrevolutionary movement; but its coherence and historical continuity have exposed anarchism and set it more clearly outside the confines of Marxism-Leninism. Left opportunist ideology is built around a smug moral idealism devoid of disciplined connection to revolutionary theory and practice. In its incapacity to integrate with and lead events, left opportunism assures failure and breeds disillusionment, thereby strengthening the bourgeoisie. The results of ultraleftism are every bit as reactionary as its rightist counterpart.
The origins of the instability of left opportunists are to be found in their class outlook. Petty-bourgeois intellectual life in its isolation and individualistic insecurity is particularly conducive to theoretical flights of fancy and delusions of grandeur. Lenin’s summation of the social type as it appeared in his time still hits the mark.
A petty bourgeois driven to frenzy by the horrors of capitalism is a social phenomenon which, like anarchism, is characteristic of all capitalist countries. The instability of such revolutionism, its barrenness, and its tendency to turn rapidly into submission, apathy, phantasms, and even a frenzied infatuation with one bourgeois fad or another – all this is common knowledge. (V.I. Lenin, “ ’Left’-Wing Communism–An Infantile Disorder,” Collected Works, Vol. 31 [Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1966], p. 32)
There are two areas of confusion on the issue of ultraleftism. The first is that it stems simply from too much revolutionary fervour, a view reenforced by consummate left opportunists, who always try to appear to the left of everyone else. They may be willing to admit to temporary errors deriving from over-enthusiasm, but they never really analyze any of their anti-proletarian attitudes and conduct.
The second area of confusion is the failure to distinguish between the opportunist leaders of any counterrevolutionary organization and the followers. It is in fact true that many individuals who are drawn into the ill-conceived theories and actions of ultraleft groups are often exuberant, young and inexperienced people. That is, they are innocent of the more finished opportunism that leads such a movement and, in some cases, can be redirected onto a revolutionary path by proper leadership. Even though the followers in a right opportunist movement appear to be more attached to the opportunism of their leaders, more conventional and more rooted in standard bourgeois styles and ideologies, the important point is that in both cases, many innocent and potentially revolutionary people are being misled by those who, more often than not, are consummate opportunists. For this reason, no real development can occur in any revolutionary forces without a clear separation from both forms of opportunism either through transformation by unsparing criticism and self-criticism or through a purge of the misleadership.
It is noteworthy that none of the groups in the “new Canadian Marxist-Leninist movement” analyze opportunism in general or their own histories in these terms. Instead, there is virtual unanimity on what is considered the major obstacle facing Marxism-Leninism in Canada at this time – the danger of right opportunism. In literally every proclamation of principles, apparent analysis, basis of unity and supposed self-criticism, there are references to the right opportunist “error” of economism – the catch-all used to describe their own past as well as the enemy that still lurks within the Marxist-Leninist ranks. When left opportunism is mentioned at all, it is given short shrift as a marginal problem, of some slight consequence in the new leftism of the 1960’s. More commonly, left opportunism is ignored to the point where nearly every recognized opportunist act or even fully opportunist group is perceived as bowing to rightist forms of spontaneity and to economism – nothing else.
In asserting that this “new movement” is little more than crystalized opportunism, we contend that it is its “left” form which has been and remains its predominant manifestation. Until ultraleftism is attacked and routed, infantile enthusiasts and their hangers-on will continue to inundate the world of revolutionary Marxism and will remain the major obstacle to the development of a viable Marxist-Leninist movement and party. The neglect of the problem of ultraleftism, especially since it has been so blatant in recent years, is itself a significant indication of the facile mode of analysis so characteristic of false leftism. It points to the fact that the whole problem of opportunism has not been properly addressed, that its history and present manifestations have not been seriously confronted and dealt with.
Contrary to the claims of some, raising the issue of ultraleftism in no way denies the problem of right opportunism, which is always and everywhere an endemic enemy of revolutionary forces. The question of left opportunism has been meticulously evaded by a “movement” which is full of it. But focusing on ultraleftism not only highlights the current evasion of the issue which is the first necessary step if there is to be any change for the better; it also, through the description of the links between left and right opportunism, more fully exposes the character of the latter, painting it more sharply and in deeper hues.
Let there be no mistake about this. Standard bourgeois and petty-bourgeois influences are the strongest influences, and therefore accompanying outlooks are deeply entrenched among all classes – including the working class, making them prey to the appeals and payoffs from right opportunist leadership. Left opportunism holds less attraction for working people; it is more tempting to intellectuals. It assumes greater prominence when Marxism-Leninism has not sunk roots in the working class. When left opportunism permeates what some call Marxism-Leninism, as it does today, it builds a formidable barricade to the very initiation of a revolutionary movement. The first real successes of Marxism-Leninism with working people will again make right opportunism the major enemy, but at the present time, the left-wing infantiles block the path to any success at all. Right now, they are the first problem which serious Marxist-Leninists must confront.